Partner Services Workgroup Summary

Summary of Office of State and Local Support Project Officer Workgroup Meeting
Marriott Century Center
Atlanta, Georgia
November 17-18, 2009
Participants:
H. “Mac” McCraw, CDC, SMO – Facilitator
Kevin O’Connor, CDC, NCHHSTP
Keith Williams, CDC, CCID, OD
Valerie Kokor, CDC, COTPER, DSLR
Norm Fikes, CDC, NCHHSTP
Bill Ramsey, CDC, NCIPC
Denise Rogers, CDC, NCIRD
Richard Gillig, ATSDR
Brock Lamont, CDC, SMO
Cheryl Maddux, CDC, PGO
Dan McDonald, CDC, OWCD
John Moore, CDC, NCDPHP
Christine Dorsey-Bowman, CDC, PMP – Recorder
Nan Migliozzi, Ohio
Maria Courogen, Washington
Dan O’Connell, New York State
1 day Participants:
Ted Pestorius, CDC, CCID
Heidi Pfeiffer, CDC, COTPER
Arun Skaria, CDC, CCID
Absent:
Elijah West, CDC, NCDPHP
Kaetz Beartusk, CDC, NCDPHP
Rashad Burgess, CDC, NCHHSTP
Purpose of Meeting
Convene a diverse group of public health officials to assist in identifying areas of support
that could enhance the provision of technical assistance provided by project officers with
the goal of increasing public health outcomes among public health partners and the public
health system.
Discussion
The interactive dialogue provided an opportunity to hear from a variety of perspectives
related to the topic. From the onset it was quickly affirmed by participants that this was
an area worthy of attention and support from leadership. During the day and a half

meeting a range of related issues were discussed from policy recommendations to
developmental/training concerns to clarity related to standard practices and expectations.
Early in the meeting it was acknowledged that this was an aspect of CDC’s organization
that has been neglected for years. The workgroup welcomed the opportunity to contribute
to address frequently cited and recognized concerns and needs regarding the related topic.
Karen White, Acting Deputy Director, Office of State and Local Support opened the
meeting by thanking and emphasizing Dr. Frieden’s support and expectations related to
improvements in this area of CDC’s partnership with external state and local partners.
She further encourage the workgroup to think globally and not just specific to project
officers; although clearly would be a focus of the discussion. All in attendance were
realistic in understanding the complexity of the challenge as well as the opportunity to
begin to address some longstanding concerns regarding CDC’s ability to provide
meaningful and essential technical assistance to public health partners in support of their
public health missions.
On several occasions during the meeting the significance of CDC’s ability and
expectation to provide technical assistance was discussed and its importance reinforced.
This underlined the fact that CDC has a pivotal role in supporting local and state partners
who is the entity that delivers and provides direct public health services as a routine and
core function of their mission. The workgroup’s perspectives stated at various times and
in various ways reflect the project officer is a critical component of that support.
Initial discussion in the morning focused around specific themes; what is expected of a
project officer and what is the project officer role? Also focused on identifying areas as
needing improvement in support of public health partners advancing or improving public
health outcomes. This could be specific to project officers or a generalization that has
wider implications for CDC assistance and partnership related to providing technical
assistance.
It was clear from the broad representation participating in the workgroup there are certain
central expectations related to task and duties associated with project officer
responsibilities. It was also reinforced during the meeting that the project officer is a
pivotal and critical official in the partnership between external public health partners and
CDC. Attached to this summary you will find a listing of stated duties/expectations
related to project officers who directly impact the quality of service and technical
assistance provided. In reviewing the list you can quickly surmise that the Project
Officer/Program Consultant is a vital liaison between CDC and state and local partners;
critical to effective communication and positioned to effectively address and support
multiple CDC and public health partners’ efforts and mission.
During discussion by the workgroup specific expectations regarding the project officer
role were highlighted and emphasized. In addition, those expectations were universally
viewed as important to local public health program managers and other key officials.
CDC programs utilize project officers in a variety of capacities performing various duties
and tasks. A review of the agency wide utilization of project officers and their duties

across multiple programs could identify activities that contribute significantly to
improving public health versus activities that are performed as a result of a gap in
capacity or focus within the agency or specific program. Identifying the work that is
universally recognized as critical to the mission would illuminate other tasks and duties
that are perhaps necessary, however are better supported within other job position.
In the afternoon discussions continued and the workgroup was divided into 3 groups
addressing 3 specific themes; 1) identify concerns, issues, or needs related to project
officers or the provision of technical assistance, 2) what current training activities or
practices related to project officers existed? and 3) lastly, what action, activities, or
practices could be done to address and support efforts related to this topic (universal in
scope and applicability)? The intent of this process was to allow the workgroup to
crosswalk responses from the various groups with the hope of identifying recognizable
synergies within areas or topics presented. Attached you will find the workgroup’s
listing of items cited.
The next day we briefly reviewed the previous work and discussions from the prior day.
In addition, we heard and processed comments from workgroup members not in
attendance the previous day to benefit from their individual perspective and hopefully
vice versa. After much discussion and remaining focus to the workgroup’s initial intent;
the workgroup identified areas of focus they believed were germane, feasible and
significant to be addressed by CDC leadership. There is complete recognition that this is
an area that has been neglected as previously stated and that related change may need to
happen incrementally. However, the group is encouraged that for the first time in a very
long time that there is recognition and a commitment by CDC to address these issues
related to project officers and providing technical assistance consistently and with a level
of continuity that supports added value on impact and less on process related to the
public health mission.
One reoccurring theme that was stated over and over by both CDC and state and local
workgroup members during the 1.5 day meeting was the lack of consistency, continuity,
or centralized structure and support associated with this element of CDC’s workforce. It
was constant whether you spoke about the way in which field visits were performed, the
way information was communicated, interpretation of policy, or expectations related to
performance. It was also obvious during workgroup discussions that there were
opportunities to support project officers that were available but for whatever reason
lacked universal acceptance or implementation.
The workgroup during the crosswalk process vetted and discussed many actions and
areas they believe were needed and would address many of the items cited during the
meeting. Recognizing that attempting to address every area of concern or need in a
singular or isolated fashion would not be practical, nor a place to begin from and would
not establish or sustain traction for a effort that will need to be sustained over a longer
period of time with appropriate resources, policies, structure and leadership. However,
the workgroup did provide some themes or areas of focus they believe meet the following

criteria; feasible, significant, universally applicable, demonstrates value in improving
public health or the public health system, and outcomes are clear and measurable.
Workgroup Recommended Areas of Focus:
1) Standardize Training – no single area or theme was cited as often or discussed as
length as this issue. It was described as a critical need and needing deliberate and
immediate attention by leadership.
2) Recruitment Strategy – this issue is related to conflicting paradigms; public health
role has expanded and the workforce pool supporting the selection of new project
officers has not kept pace. Since the advent of 9/11 and the increasing role of
public health outside of traditional public health missions the task of project
officers have changed as well as their experience in basic public health
operations, management and operations. Consistent criteria regarding the level of
experience, training, or skill should be considered.
3) Universal Expectations and Performance Indicators or Standards – often the lack
of global understanding of expectations related to the work of project officers has
contributed to the lack of clarity, consistency and continuity. This is frequently
recognized by external partners in their interactions with project officers and is
also internally experienced when project officers move from program to program
within CDC.
4) Establish Evaluation Framework including feedback from External Partners –
needed to assist with assessing the necessary focus on performing the right work
the right way consistent with CDC expectations regardless of program, CIO or
management structure. External feedback is not only appropriate it is critical to
assessing that services provided are contributed to improving public health.
5) Senior Leadership Provide Executive Guidance and Oversight – the focus of the
work performed by project officers may be program centric however the group
believed that continuity, consistency and applicability regarding their work is
critical. Given the fluidity of project officers and the various programs utilizing
project officers it is viewed as essential that a mechanism be established that
reinforces consistency, continuity and accountability regarding training,
recruitment, performance, and evaluation.